Section 3, Article 3

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence (communication by exchanging letters

with someone) shall be inviolable(absolute) except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.

The Constitution is silent on the grounds of justifiable intrusion, but the courts may determine it
by probable cause (Probability of guilt of a specific offender need not be established in
search)
warrants

Tangible Only Rule

 Tangible objects : letters, telegrams, signals, cables, telephone, client’s files

 Intangible objects : Private Communication (RA 4200)

Section 1 of R.A. 4200 Wiretapping Law "An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and
Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes," provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawfull for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.

It shall be unlawful for any persons, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken words, to :
TDS–IRS(D3 WTH)
1. Tap any wire or cable
2. Using any other device or arrangement
3. To secretly overhear
4. Intercept
5. Record such communication
6. Spoken word by using a device known as:
a. Dictaphone or
b. Dictagraph or
c. Detectaphone or
d. Walkie-talkie or
e. Tape recorder or
f. However otherwise describe.
"even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another
without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200

Exception: Recording may be allowed

1. Civil or Criminal Cases involving national security
2. Authorization by the Court
Note:
 The use of telephone extension in order to listen to private does not constitute wiretapping
as it is not among the devices covered by RA 4200 because the extension is not for the
purpose of deliberately tapping the line.

 Tap means physical interception through wire or deliberate installation of a devise or

arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, record spoken words.
Case:
In Re: Wenceslao Laureta:
“The letter was no longer private since it had became part of the judicial record
and have become a matter of the entire Supreme Court”
Garcillano vs House of Representatives:
SC denied the injuction by Garcillano to prohibit the playing of the tape (Hello
Garci) because (1) The act complained of has already been accomplished, (2) the reports
on the tape has already been completed and submitted to the House in Plenary
People v. Marti:
Package bound for Switzerland – The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked
against act of private individuals. It is directed against the government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law. The constitutional against unreasonable searches
and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by a private individual.
Zulueta vs Martin
SC held that the documents from the drawers of her husband are inadmissible.
The right to privacy communication and correspondence may apply against the wife. The
only way to allow this is there must be a lawful order from the Court and when it is a matter
of national sercurity.
Marti Case vs Zulueta Case:
In Zulueta, the SC applied Section 3 or constitutional right against private person
while in Marti states that Bill of Rights may only be invoked against the state. Section 3 is
not covered by the Marti Rule and Marti Rule will not apply as to spouses
Ople vs Torres
National ID system violates the right to privacy